DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
The amendment/remarks submitted 03/10/2026 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9 and 11-17 are pending. Claims 4, 6, 8, and 10 are cancelled. Claims 1-2 are amended. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9 and 11-17 are examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 11-12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2009-283353 A (“Minamino” – machine translation dated 06/09/2025 cited herein).
Regarding claim 1, Minamino discloses a positive electrode active material (“cathode active material”) for a lithium secondary battery ([0037]-[0038]). The positive electrode active material comprises first active material particles (“first cathode active material”) and second active material particles (“second cathode active material”) with smaller circularity than that of the first active material particle (Abstract).
The average circularity of the particles is, for example, the average value of the circularities of 1,000 or more particles ([0024]). It is expected that the same or a substantially similar measurement would hold over a larger sample of 10,000 or more particles. Alternatively, a measurement over a larger sample size would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain as accurate a measurement as possible.
Minamino further discloses the mixing ratio of the first active material particles to the second active material particles is preferably 50:50 to 80:20 (i.e. 8:2 to 5:5) ([0034]). In view of the Examples, this is a weight ratio. The mixing weight ratio would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the mixing ratio disclosed by Minamino overlaps the mixing weight ratio as claimed. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Furthermore, “[t]he normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and MPEP 2144.05.
Minamino does not expressly disclose the first cathode active material has a circularity of 0.95 to 0.96, and the second cathode active material has a circularity of 0.9 to 0.95. However, Minamino discloses the active material particles (i.e. a blend of the first cathode active material and the second cathode active material) have a positive correlation between particle diameter and circularity (i.e. relatively large particles have a large circularity, and relatively small particles have a small circularity). This improves the packing rate of the active material and significantly improves the energy density of the battery ([0020], [0024], [0028]-[0032]). The claimed circularities of the first and second cathode active materials would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of Minamino teaching a positive correlation between particle diameter and circularity to improve the packing rate of the active material and the energy density of the battery. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to optimize the circularity of the first and second cathode active materials through routine experimentation given that Minamino teaches a positive correlation between particle diameter and circularity (i.e. relatively large particles have a large circularity, and relatively small particles have a small circularity) improves the packing rate of the active material and significantly improves the energy density of the battery ([0020], [0024], [0028]-[0032]).
Minamino discloses the lithium transition metal composite oxide is represented by LiNi1-xMxO2 where M is at least one selected from Mn, Co, Al, Fe, and Cr and 0.1≤x≤0.4 ([0042]). While Minamino does not expressly disclose the first cathode active material and the second cathode active material each independently include lithium metal oxide particles containing nickel, cobalt, and manganese, selecting both Mn and Co as the element M amounts to choosing from among a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success in view of the disclosure of Minamino. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 5, modified Minamino discloses the cathode active material of claim 1. Minamino further discloses an average circularity of the entire active material is preferably 0.94 to 0.97 ([0023]). The average circularity of the cathode active material would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the average circularity of the entire active material disclosed by Minamino overlaps the average circularity of the cathode active material as claimed. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Furthermore, “[t]he normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, modified Minamino discloses the cathode active material of claim 1. Minamino does not expressly disclose a difference in the circularity between the first cathode active material and the second cathode active material is 0.01 or more. However, Minamino discloses the second active material particles have a smaller circularity than the first active material particles so as to fill the gaps between the first active material particles ([0014], [0030]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the difference through routine experimentation in pursuit of how best to fill the gaps between the first active material particles, improving energy density of the battery ([0020]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Minamino discloses the cathode active material of claim 1. Minamino further discloses the particle diameter of the first active material particles is 10 to 50 µm ([0032]). The average particle diameter (D50) of the first cathode active material would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the particle diameter disclosed by Minamino overlaps the particles diameter as claimed. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Furthermore, “[t]he normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 12, modified Minamino discloses the cathode active material of claim 1. Minamino further discloses the particle diameter of the second active material particles is 2 to 5 µm ([0033]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Minamino discloses the cathode active material of claim 1. It is deemed that tap density is an inherent characteristic and/or property of the specifically disclosed cathode active material. In this respect, MPEP 2112 sets forth the following:
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
“When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id.
Regarding claims 15 and 17, modified Minamino discloses the cathode active material of claim 1. Minamino further discloses a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material layer which comprises the positive electrode active material ([0037]-[0038], [0041]) and a lithium ion secondary battery comprising the positive electrode and a negative electrode facing the positive electrode ([0038]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Minamino discloses the cathode of claim 15. Minamino is silent regarding the cathode active material layer having an electrode density of 2.5 to 4.0 g/cc. However, Minamino discloses an object of the invention is to provide a high packing density of the electrode and thereby a high filling rate which improves the energy density of the battery ([0012], [0019], [0023], [0087]-[0088]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the electrode density including to the range as claimed through routine experimentation because Minamino seeks to improve the filling rate and discloses the density of the electrode affects the filling rate and the energy density of the battery.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2009-283353 A (“Minamino” – machine translation dated 06/09/2025 cited herein) in view of US 2022/0285676 A1 (“Kaneda”).
Regarding claims 2-3, modified Minamino discloses the cathode of claim 1. As discussed above, Minamino discloses the lithium transition metal composite oxide is represented by LiNi1-xMxO2 where M is at least one selected from Mn, Co, Al, Fe, and Cr and 0.1≤x≤0.4 ([0042]). Minamino is silent regarding the first cathode active material and the second cathode active material each independently include lithium metal oxide particles represented by Formula 1 as claimed.
Kaneda discloses a positive electrode active material for a lithium ion secondary battery (Abstract). The mole ratio of the elements is Li:Ni:M=a:b:c ([0044]); where 0.95≤a≤1.10 so that the reaction resistance of the positive electrode is decreased to improve the output of the secondary battery ([0046]); 0.70≤b<0.95 so that a high battery capacity and a high cycle characteristic can be attained ([0048]); Co is included as one of the elements M in an amount of c1 where 0.05≤c1≤0.20 so that high thermal stability and a high output characteristic can be attained ([0051]); Mn is included as one of the elements M in an amount of c2 where 0.05≤c2≤0.20 so that thermal stability can be improved ([0052]); and Al is included as one of the elements M in an amount of c3 where 0.01≤c3≤0.06 so that thermal stability can be improved ([0053]). The claimed formula would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the teachings of Kaneda to attain a high battery capacity, a high cycle characteristic, high thermal stability, and a high output characteristic.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2009-283353 A (“Minamino” – machine translation dated 06/09/2025 cited herein) in view of JP H07-114942 A (“Hasegawa” – machine translation dated 06/09/2025 cited herein).
Regarding claim 9, Minamino discloses the cathode active material of claim 1. Minamino does not expressly disclose the first cathode active material has a polycrystalline structure, and the second cathode active material has a single crystal structure.
Hasegawa discloses a positive electrode active material comprising a composite oxide of lithium and nickel ([0009]). The composite oxide comprises a mixture of single crystal powder and polycrystalline powder ([0005]). This provides significantly suppressed cycle deterioration when deep charge/discharge was repeated and prevents current collection failure caused by cracks occurring at grain boundaries ([0008]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed polycrystalline and single crystal structures because Hasegawa teaches it significantly suppressed cycle deterioration when deep charge/discharge was repeated and prevents current collection failure caused by cracks occurring at grain boundaries.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2009-283353 A (“Minamino” – machine translation dated 06/09/2025 cited herein) in view of US 2022/0140320 A1 (“Jin”).
Regarding claim 13, Minamino discloses the cathode active material of claim 1. Minamino is silent regarding the first cathode active material having a secondary particle structure, and the second cathode active material having a single particle structure.
Jin discloses a positive electrode active material layer including two types of positive electrode active materials include first positive electrode active material particles which have an average particle diameter (D50) of 8 µm to 20 µm and second positive electrode active material particles in the form of a single particle which have a smaller average particle diameter (D50) than the average particle diameter (D50) of the first positive electrode active material particles (Abstract). By including the two types of positive electrode active materials, the cathode cracking of the positive electrode active material can be more effectively prevented ([0015]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the first and second cathode active materials as claimed to more effectively prevent cracking of the positive electrode active material as taught by Jin.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pp. 8-17, filed 03/10/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103 over Minamino have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Minamino does not disclose or suggest the configuration in which the sphericity of the first cathode active material is limited as in the present application (0.9 to 0.96) (pp. 10-12). The Office respectfully disagrees. Minamino discloses a positive correlation between particle diameter and circularity (i.e. relatively large particles have a large circularity, and relatively small particles have a small circularity) improves the packing rate of the active material and significantly improves the energy density of the battery ([0020], [0024], [0028]-[0032]). For this reason, it is the position of the Office that the claimed circularity would have been obvious over Minamino.
Applicant alleges the presence of unexpected results in the claimed invention and cites the declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 submitted 09/09/2025 in support. Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the “objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.” In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). See also MPEP 716.02. For example, in this case data are provided for specific active material compositions, while claim 1 recites element included in the composition; and data are provided for the circularity of the second cathode material in the range of 0.941 to 0.951, while claim 1 recites the circularity of the second cathode material is 0.9 to 0.95; It is not clear that the entire claimed range would appreciate the benefits discussed by applicant.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert Scott Carrico whose telephone number is (571)270-5504. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:15AM-6PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Robert Scott Carrico
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/Robert S Carrico/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights